Subject:
|
Re: Customs question...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Nov 2001 23:00:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
652 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> By the way, I am not "honest" (to the extent of never marking "gift") when
> it comes to dealing with governments that are dishonest. I have not
> voluntarily entered into any contract with them that entitles them to my
> (non reciprocated) honesty.
But you would probably argue that you are *moral*, while dishonest, or at
least "not immoral", I'm guessing? Or at least that you would argue that one
could *be* dishonest (by marking "gift") and yet still be moral, even though
maybe you're not in this case?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) No, I would argue that it is *not* dishonest to lie to someone or something that has first lied to me. Which is why I put "honest" in quotes because the definition of honesty that would require me to sacrifice myself at the whim of a (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) You were asking him, but I'll answer with my opinion anyway... No, it is not immoral to lie, in general. Was it immoral for the UK to place large inflatable tanks in empty fields to mislead the Germans about where the invasion was being (...) (23 years ago, 13-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
